Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report to S.1260, the ``Securities Litigation Reform Uniform Standards Act of 1998'' and I want to commend the Majority Leader for bringing this conference report to the floor for a vote prior to the Senate's adjournment. Few issues are more important to the high-tech community and the efficient operation of our capital markets than securities fraud lawsuit reform. So today, I want to congratulate Senators D'Amato, Dodd, and Gramm for all of their hard work on this legislation to provide one set of rules to govern securities fraud class actions. This conference report completes the work I began more than six years ago with Senator Sanford of North Carolina. Back in the early 1990's, Senator Sanford and I noticed that a small group of entrepreneurial plaintiffs' lawyers were abusing our securities laws and the federal rules related to class action lawsuits to file frivolous claims against high-technology companies in federal courts. Often these lawsuits were based simply on the fact that a company's stock price had fallen, without any real evidence of wrongdoing by the company. Senator Sanford and I realized a long time ago that stock price volatility- common in high tech stocks- simply is not stock fraud. But, because it was so expensive and time consuming to fight these lawsuits, many companies settled even when they knew they were innocent of the charges leveled against them. The money used to pay for these frivolous lawsuits could have been used for research and development or to create new, high-paying jobs. So, we introduced a bill to make some changes to the securities fraud class action system. Of course, the powerful plaintiffs' bar opposed our efforts, and the bill did not move very far along in the legislative process. After Senator Sanford left the Senate, I found a new partner--the senior Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd and I continued to work hard on this issue and in 1995, with tremendous help from Chairman D'Amato and Senator Gramm, we succeeded in passing a law. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 passed Congress in an overwhelmingly bi-partisan way--over President Clinton's initial veto of the bill. And since enactment of the 1995 law, we have seen great changes in the conduct of plaintiffs' class action lawyers in federal court. Because of more stringent pleading requirements, plaintiffs' lawyers no longer ``race to the courthouse'' to be the first to file securities class actions. Because of the new rules, we no longer have ``professional plaintiffs''--investors who buy a few shares of stock and then serve as sham named plaintiffs in multiple securities class actions. Other rules make it difficult for plaintiffs' lawyers to file lawsuits to force companies into settlement rather than face the expensive and time consuming ``fishing expedition'' discovery process. From my perspective, it has begun to look like our new law has worked too well. Entrepreneurial trial lawyers have begun filing similar claims in state court to avoid the new law's safeguards against frivolous and abusive lawsuits. Instead of one set of rules, we now have 51--one for the federal system and 50 different ones in the states. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, this migration of claims from federal court to state court ``may be the most significant development in securities litigation'' since the passage of the new law in 1995. In fact, prior to passage of the new law in 1995, state courts rarely served as the forum for securities fraud lawsuits. Now, more than 25 percent of all securities class actions are brought in state court. A recent Price Waterhouse study found that the average number of state court class actions filed in 1996 (the first year after the new law) grew 335 percent over the 1991-1995 average. In 1997, state court filings were 150 percent greater than the 1991-1995 average. So, there has been a tremendous increase in state securities fraud class actions. In fact, trial lawyers have testified to Congress that they have an obligation to file securities fraud lawsuits in state court if it provides a more attractive forum for their clients. Believe it or not, plaintiffs' lawyers actually admit that they are attempting to avoid federal law. The increase in state court lawsuits also has prevented high-tech companies from taking advantage of one of the most significant reforms in the 1995 law--the safe harbor for forward-looking statements. Under the 1995 law, companies which make predictive statements are exempt from lawsuits based on those statements if they meet certain requirements. Companies are reluctant to use the safe harbor and make predictive statements because they fear that such statements could be used against them in state court. This fear stifles the free flow of important information to investors--certainly not a result we intended when we passed the new law. So today, the Senate will vote to send to the President one set of rules for securities fraud cases. One uniform set of rules is critical for our high-technology community and our capital markets. Without this legislation, the productivity of the high-tech industry--the fastest growing segment of our economy--will continue to be hamstrung by abusive, lawyer-driven lawsuits. Rather than spend their resources on R&D or creating new jobs, high-tech companies will continue to be forced to spend massive sums fending off frivolous lawsuits. That is unacceptable to this Senator. When I first worked on this issue, executives at Intel Corporation told me that if they had been hit with a frivolous securities lawsuit early in the company's history, they likely never would have invented the microchip. We should not let that happen to the next generation of Intels. This new law also will be important to our markets. Our capital markets are the envy of the world, and by definition are national in scope. Information provided by companies to the markets is directed to investors across the United States and throughout the world. Under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate in areas affecting ``interstate commerce.'' I cannot imagine a more classic example of what constitutes ``interstate commerce'' than the purchase and sale of securities over a national exchange. Not only does Congress have the authority to regulate in this area, it clearly is necessary and appropriate. Right now, in an environment where there are 50 different sets of rules, companies must take into account the most onerous state liability rules and tailor their conduct to those rules. If the liability rules in one state make it easier for entrepreneurial lawyers to bring frivolous lawsuits, that affects companies and the information available to investors in all other states. One uniform set of rules will eliminate that problem. Mr. President, I again want to commend my colleagues for their work on this important bill. I understand that this is a bi-partisan effort, which has the support of the SEC and the Clinton Administration. I also want to thank my colleagues over in the House--Chairman Bliley, Representative Cox, and others who have worked so hard on this issue. This is the culmination of a tremendous amount of work, and I think that our capital markets, high-tech companies and our litigation system will be better served because of it.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute on my behalf, and on behalf of the people of New Mexico, to a true American patriot, Senator John Glenn. It has indeed been a privilege to serve in this Chamber for 24 years with a man of such honor and distinction. Although I only served with Senator Glenn on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee for a brief time, I have been able to witness firsthand John Glenn's legendary fairness and leadership. I doubt there has ever been a Senator who could match his dogged determination. He worked tirelessly for many years to cut government waste and improve the efficiency of government, and I applaud his efforts. Since his arrival in 1974, John Glenn has championed the cause of space exploration and research, an area of particular interest and importance to my home state of New Mexico. He has long understood, and I strongly concur with him, that the United States has a unique opportunity and obligation to the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of the heavens. Thanks to Senator Glenn's continuing sense of duty and service to his country, we will expand our understanding of space and its effects on the human body. The success of our space program has enabled our children to dream of different worlds, our scientists to explore the nature of matter and the origins of time, and us to be able to look up into the night sky and to understand what we see. John Glenn played a crucial role in achieving this success. His flight on Friendship 7 was one of the first indications of the greatness of America's space program. His flight on Discovery will be a continuation of the greatness John Glenn helped established--and a confirmation of the contributions senior Americans can, and do, make in our society. John Glenn's life as a military hero, space pioneer, and statesman is the stuff of legends. Although his time here in the Senate draws to a close, he assures us that the legend will grow when he takes off on the shuttle Discovery later this month. It truly has been a pleasure to work with the distinguished Senator from Ohio. Good luck, John Glenn, and God Bless.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great respect that I rise today to express my gratitude to the distinguished Minority Whip, Senator Wendell Ford, for his 22 years of service to the United States Senate. I have been here since the beginning of his Senate career and have witnessed his many accomplishments over the years. His tenure has represented a shining example of hard work, honesty, and integrity. Senator Ford and I served on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for many years together and shared a mutual interest in energy policy. He has been a strong advocate of the disposal of chemical weapons at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky and has stood firm in his commitment to exploring safe, affordable, and environmentally sound alternatives to chemical weapons incineration. He understands the threats of nuclear proliferation and we have shared a common desire to ensure proper stewardship of nuclear stockpiles across the globe. I have appreciated his valuable contribution to this mission and will miss his presence on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. An accomplished public servant, Senator Ford served his country in World War II, was elected Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and as a Senator, established himself as a national leader in energy, aviation, and federal-election reform policy. However, he may be best known for his steadfast commitment to serving the people of his beloved home state, Kentucky. He has diligently sought to create opportunities for the people of America and I am confident that upon his return to Kentucky, he will continue to give as generously of himself as he did during his 22 years of service in Congress. I believe that I speak on behalf of all members of the Senate when I say that Wendell's leadership, talent, and friendship will be sorely missed. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to work with him and hope that when the time comes for me to leave office, I will be as well respected as Senator Wendell Ford by my constituency and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Wendell, on behalf of myself and the State of New Mexico, I commend you on job very well done and wish you and Jean continued health and happiness in your retirement.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pride and honor that I rise today to pay tribute to my retiring colleague from Idaho, Senator Dirk Kempthorne. In his six years of service to the United States Senate, he has proven himself to be a very thoughtful and determined leader and I am honored to have the opportunity to rise and speak on his accomplishments. It was a pleasure to work with Senator Kempthorne as he crafted one of the most important bills we have passed in the United States Senate, the Unfunded Mandates bill. I was particularly pleased that the private sector was included in the assessment of Unfunded mandates and Dirk was generous and extraordinarily helpful to me and my staff throughout the legislative process as we developed and negotiated this legislation. Not only did the junior Senator from Idaho manage two weeks of debate on the Senate floor which sometimes lasted 12 hours a day, but his skillful leadership and influence brought affected parties to the table to negotiate and produce legislation which passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins. Clearly, without his strong commitment to American small businesses, this objective would not have been achieved. In addition to his service on the Small Business Committee and Armed Forces Committee, Senator Kempthorne was given the responsibility of chairing the Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He wrote an update of the Safe Drinking Water Act which won bipartisan praise. He worked many long and arduous hours crafting legislation to reauthorize and reform the Endangered Species Act, an issue extremely important New Mexico and other WesternStates. Dirk's perseverance and hard work was instrumental in laying the groundwork for long overdue reform of this law and I am hopeful that we can be as diligent and compromising as he has been in crafting and passing ESA reform legislation in the future. The state of Idaho is fortunate to have a statesman of his caliber. During his tenure, he has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle because of his unique ability to negotiate, compromise, and foster positive working relationships not only with his colleagues, but between federal, state, and local governments. These skills will serve him well as he faces new challenges in the future. Although we will miss his presence in this body, I know that he will continue to be a valuable asset not only to the state of Idaho but to this Nation. Finally, I understand the challenges and difficulties associated with raising a family while serving in Congress and I respect and admire his decision to do what is right for his family and their future. Nancy and I wish Dirk, Patricia, and their children all the best.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today, with great pleasure, I introduce ``The Rural Employment in Telecommunications Industry Act of 1998.'' The introduction of this Bill marks a historic opportunity for rural communities to create jobs within the telecommunications industry. The Bill establishes a program to train residents of low income rural areas for employment in telecommunications industry jobs located in those same rural areas. As many of my colleagues know, I have an initiative called ``rural payday'' and I believe this Bill is yet another step in creating jobs for our rural areas. All too often a rural area is characterized by a high number of low income residents and a high unemployment rate. Moreover, our rural areas are often dependent upon a small number of employers or a single industry for employment opportunities. Consequently, when there is a plant closing or a downturn in the economy or a slowdown in the area's industry the already present problems are only compounded. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and talk about New Mexico. While New Mexico may be the 5th largest state by size with its beautiful mountains, desert, and Great Plains and vibrant cities such as Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces it is also a very rural state. The Northwest and Southeast portions of the state are currently experiencing difficulties as a result of the downturn in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, the community of Roswell has been dealt a blow with the closing of the Levi Straus manufacturing plant. As I stated before, rural areas that simply do not have the resources of more metropolitan areas can be simply devastated by a single event or downturn in the economy. And that Mr. President is why I am introducing ``The Rural Employment in Telecommunications Industry Act of 1998.'' The Bill will allow the Secretary of Labor to establish a program to promote rural employment in the telecommunications industry by providing grants to states with low income rural areas. The program will be a win win proposition for all involved because employers choosing to participate in the project by bringing jobs to the rural area will be assured of a highly skilled workforce. The program will provide residents with intensive services to train them for the new jobs in the telecommunications industry. The intensive services will include customized training and appropriate remedial training, support services and placement of the individual in one the new jobs created by the program. And that is what this bill is about, providing people with the tools needed to succeed. With these steps we are embarking on the road of providing our rural areas throughout our nation with a vehicle to create jobs. We are creating opportunities and an environment where our citizens can succeed and our communities can be vibrant. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Valles Caldera in Northern New Mexico is a place you visit for a day, and long to return to for a life time. It is nature at its most extraordinary--an almost perfectly round bowl formed by a collapsed volcano. It is a place with rolling meadows, crystal-clear streams, roaming elk, Ponderosa pines and quaking Aspen trees, and Golden eagles. This legislation guarantees that this very special place will be there for future generations to visit and remember. I am very proud to be introducing legislation that will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a truly unique 95,000 acre ``working ranch'' in New Mexico, known alternatively as the Baca Ranch, the Valle Grande, and the Valles Caldera. Independently, but as importantly, this legislation also addresses longstanding problems encountered by Federal land managers in disposing of surplus federal property and the acquisition of private inholdings within federal management areas. The former provides a unique solution to the management of a unique property, while the latter builds on existing laws and provides resources dedicated to the consolidation of federal agency land holdings. In north-central New Mexico there is a truly unique working ranch on an historic Mexican land grant known as Baca Location No. 1. The Ranch is currently owned and managed by the Baca Land and Cattle Company, and it comprises most of a collapsed, extinct volcano known as the Valles Caldera. This ranch also contains innumerable significant cultural, historic, recreational, ecological, and productive resources. The bill I introduce today is the result of months of negotiation with the Administration, Senator Bingaman, and Congressman Redmond. We have incorporated ideas from groups interested in the acquisition of the truly unique Baca Ranch. Many Americans, especially New Mexicans have expressed a desire for the federal government to purchase the Ranch. After months of research and consideration, I met with President Clinton on Air Force One while we were both returning to Washington from New Mexico to discuss the possibility of this land acquisition. Because the nature of the property requires a unique operational program for appropriate development and preservation, I approached him with an innovative trust structure for the management of the Baca Ranch. This trust would manage the ranch with appropriate public input and governmental oversight. I indicated that I was not interested in having the ranch managed under current federal agency practices. The President expressed enthusiasm for making this concept a reality, and we agreed on a Statement of Principles to govern the acquisition of the Baca Ranch at the end of July. This unique working ranch has been well maintained and preserved by the current owners. In fact, if ever there was an example of sterling stewardship of a piece of property, this is it. The legislation introduced today certainly cannot pass this year: unfortunately, time has run out for the 105th Congress, but many concerns and ideas about federal purchase of the property will be discussed at hearings upon reintroduction in the 106th Congress. While there is consenus that this property should be acquired, we do not yet know the cost of the property. The Baca Ranch is estimated to be worth approximately $100 to $125 million, but the appraisal has not yet been given to the Forest Service or made public. Therefore, the exact cost of acquisition has yet to be determined. This is the largest purchase of public land by the Forest Service in at least 25 years, therefore, it is imperative that careful consideration is given to not only the purchase, but to the management of the property as well. In past years, federal land management agencies have been criticized for their stewardship of public lands. I find it ironic that many of the groups who wish to bring this ranch into government ownership are the same groups who, in recent years, have initiated relentless litigation against the Forest Service and BLM alleging poor management of federal lands. However, diverse interests have come together to reach agreement on the trust management of the Ranch, and Congressman Redmond and I have worked hard in both Houses of Congress to obtain funding for purchase. Any funding at this point should be viewed as earnest money, and will be subject to this authorization and agreement on the fair market value for the property. The parties have really worked hard in framing this legislation, and there are still a few issues we would like to work out. Not the least of which includes the interest expressed by the Santa Clara Pueblo in purchasing land outside the Caldera, but contains the headwaters of the Santa Clara Creek. Negotiations between the Pueblo, the Administration, the current owners of the property, and the congressional delegation on how to resolve this issue was not completed prior to today's introduction. However, all parties are interested in continuing discussion regarding a potential Santa Clara purchase of property adjacent to their pueblo. I also note that Congressman Redmond has expressed specific interest in addressing other Native American issues regarding the Ranch acquisition. I have visited the Baca Ranch, and I can tell you that it is one beautiful piece of property. The Valles Caldera is one of the world's largest resurgent lava domes with potential geothermal activity. The depression from a hugh volcanic eruption over a million years ago is more than a half-mile deep and fifteen miles across at its widest point. The land was originally granted to the heirs of Don Luis Maria Cabeza de Vaca under a settlement enacted by Congress in 1860. Since that time, the property has remained virtually intact as a single, large, tract of land. Historical evidence in the form of old logging camps and other artifacts, and a review of the history of territorial New Mexico clearly show the importance of this land over many generations for the rearing of domesticated livestock, and as a timber supply for local inhabitants. Several film sets have been left standing on the property, representing a significant part of the history of the American film industry and its depiction of the American West. The careful husbandry of the Ranch by the Dunigan family, the current owners, including selective harvesting of timber, limited grazing and hunting, and the use of proscribed fire, have preserved a mix of healthy range and timber land with significant species diversity providing a model for sustainable land development and use. The Ranch's natural beauty and abundant resources, and its proximity to large municipal populations could provide numerous recreational opportunities for hiking, fishing, camping, cross-country skiing, and hunting. Mr. President, the Baca Location is a unique working ranch. It is not a wilderness area, as in the words of the Wilderness Act, ``untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does not remain.'' Man has been there for many generations, and will remain for many to come. Similarly, it is not a resource that could be run well as a national park. This ranch can best be protected for future generations by continuing its operation as a working asset through a unique management structure. This legislation provides unique management under a trust that may allow for its eventual operation to become financially self- sustaining. Mr. President, recent indication by the current owners of the Baca Location that they wish to sell the ranch has created an opportunity for us to acquire it into public ownership and allow for appropriate public access and enjoyment of these lands for the first time since 1860. Because of the ranch's unique character, however, I am not interested in having it managed under the usual federal authorities, as is typical of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or the National Park Service. Under the current state of affairs on our public lands, Forest Service and BLM management is constantly hounded by litigation initiated by some of the same groups that wish to bring this ranch into government ownership. I do not want to take this property, put it in that situation, and then claim we have done a great thing. This legislation represents an opportunity to experiment with a different kind of public land management scheme. Burdensome regulations, and litigation resulting therefrom, have brought federal land management practices rapidly towards gridlock. The Valles Caldera National Preserve will serve as a model to explore alternative means of federal management and will provide the American people with opportunities to enjoy the Valles Caldera and its many resources for generations to come. This trust idea, based on similar legislation for federal management of the Presidio in San Francisco, sets in motion a truly unique management scheme befitting this truly unique place. I am willing to take a chance on an innovative approach because I believe that the current quagmire of federal land management simply does not do justice to this very special place. The unique nature of the Valles Caldera, and its resources, requires a unique management program, dedicated to appropriate development and preservation under the principle of the highest and best use of the ranch in the interest of the public. Mr. President, title I of this legislation provides the framework necessary to fulfil that objective. It authorizes the acquisition of the Baca ranch by the appropriate Federal agency. At the same time, it establishes a government-owned corporation, called the Valles Caldera Trust, whose sole responsibility is to ensure that the ranch is managed in a manner that will preserve its current unique character, and provide enumerable opportunities for the American people to enjoy its splendor. Most importantly to me, however, the legislation will allow for the ranch's continued operation as a working asset for the people of north-central New Mexico, without further drawing on the thinly- stretched resources of the Federal land management agencies. I am looking forward to hearings on this legislation next year, and know that the legislative process shall enlighten us further as to the complex nature of the Ranch. I, personally, am greatly looking forward to seeing an value estimate of the land prior to authorization. While valued between $37 and $55 million in 1980, I have heard that the Baca ranch is currently estimated to be worth approximately $100 to $125 million. I do not know how such inflation will affect the likelihood of the location's federal acquisition. I do know that we have waited patiently for many months for a promised appraisal from the current owners, but an appraisal has not yet been complete nor have any other offers to purchase the land been made. Therefore, the exact cost of acquisition has yet to be determined. Before we commit large sums of federal taxpayer dollars to purchase new property, it seems prudent to provide a solution for the orderly disposal of surplus federal property and to meet our current obligations to those who hold lands within federal properties. I would like to emphasize that while both portions of this bill are important to federal land management, both in New Mexico and nationwide, my intention is not to tie federal acquisition of the Baca upon disposition of surplus federal land. Instead, I feel this legislation independently addresses the acquisition of this unique property for public use and enjoyment, while solving current land management problems. Currently, New Mexico has approximately one-third of its land in public ownership or management. I agree that these public lands are an important natural resource that require our most thoughtful management. In order to conserve our existing National treasures for future use and enjoyment, we must devise, with the concurrence of other members of Congress and the President, a definite plan and timetable to dispose of surplus land through sale or exchange into private ownership. Title II of this legislation addresses the orderly disposition of surplus federal property on a state by state basis. It also addresses the problem of what is known as ``inholdings'' within federally managed areas. There are currently more than 45 million acres of privately owned lands trapped within the boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, national forests, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. The location of these tracts, referred to as inholdings, makes the exercise of private property rights difficult for the land owner. In addition, management of the public lands is made more cumbersome for the federal land managers. In many cases, inholders have been waiting generations for the federal government to set aside funding and prioritize the acquisition of their property. With rapidly growing public demand for the use of public lands, it is increasingly difficult for federal managers to address problems created by the existence of inholdings in many areas. This legislation directs the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to survey inholdings existing within Federal land management units, and to establish a priority for their acquisition, on a willing seller basis, in the order of those which have existed as inholdings for the longest time to those most recently being incorporated into the Federal unit. Closely related to the problem created by inholdings within Federal land management units, is the abundance of public domain land which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined it no longer needs to fulfil its mission. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM has identified an estimated four to six million acres of public domain lands for disposal, and the agency anticipates that additional public land will be similarly identified, with public input and consultation with State and local governments as required by law. Mr. President, let me simply clarify that point--the BLM already has authority under an existing law, FLPMA, to exchange or sell lands out of Federal ownership. Through its public process for land use planning, when the agency has determined that certain lands would be more useful to the public under private or local governmental control, it is already authorized to dispose of these lands, either by sale or exchange. The sale or exchange of this land which I have often referred to as ``surplus,'' would be beneficial to local communities, adjoining land owners, and BLM land mangers, alike. First, it would allow for the reconfiguration of land ownership patterns to better facilitate resource management. Second, it would contribute to administrative efficiency within federal land management units, by allowing for better allocation of fiscal and human resources within the agency. Finally, in certain locations, the sale of public land which has been identified for disposal is the best way for the public to realize a fair value for this land. The problem, Mr. President, is that an orderly process for the efficient disposition of lands identified for disposal does not currently exist. This legislation addresses that problem by directing the BLM to fulfil all legal requirements for the transfer of these lands out of Federal ownership, and providing a dedicated source of funding generated from the sale of these lands to continue this process. Additionally, this legislation authorizes the use of the proceeds generated from these lands to purchase inholdings from willing sellers. This will enhance the ability of the Federal land management agencies to work cooperatively with private land owners, and with State and local governments, to consolidate the ownership of public and private land in a manner that would allow for better overall resource management. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that this program will in no way detract from other programs with similar purposes. The bill clearly states that proceeds generated from the disposal of public land, and dedicated to the acquisition of inholdings, will supplement, and not replace, funds appropriated for that purpose through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, the bill states that the Bureau of Land Management should rely on non-Federal entities to conduct appraisals and other research required for the sale or exchange of these lands, allowing for the least disruption of existing land and resource management programs. Mr. President, this bill has been a long time in the making. For over a year, now, I have been working with and talking to knowledgeable people, both inside and outside of the current administration, to develop many of the ideas embodied in this bill. In recent weeks, my staff and I have worked closely with the administration on this legislation. I feel comfortable in stating that by working together, we have reached agreement in principle on the best way to proceed with these very important issues involving the management of public land resources, namely; the acquisition and unique management plan for the Baca ranch in New Mexico, and just as importantly, the disposition of surplus public lands in combination with a program to address problems associated with inholdings within our Federal land management units. Mr. President, I have committed to the administration to continue to work with them on three or four areas of this bill, where concerns remain. I have full confidence, however, that we can address these issues through the legislative process in the next Congress. For example, the need for additional roads, parking, visitor facilities, and water and mineral rights are also important issues that must be resolved. However, we are very luck to have the pleasure of a bipartisan, administration approved, legislative concept from which to work. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will schedule hearings to address the many issues regarding Federal purchase of the Baca Ranch early in the 106th Congress. Hopefully, by that time, an appraisal will be available for review. Congress has tried to resolve the difficult challenges in acquiring this property before, and failed; cooperation among the parties may bring success this time around. I believe that in the end, we will be able to stand together and tell the American people that we truly have accomplished two great and innovative things with this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Statement of Principles be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. First let me talk for a moment, since he is present on the floor, of Senator Bumpers, the senior Senator from Arkansas. Let me use a couple of minutes of my time to say a few words about him before I proceed to talk about the budget and a few other matters. First, I want to say to Senator Bumpers, I don't think he needs me to repeat again what I have said in committee. He is going to be missed. He has been a real credit to this place called the U.S. Senate. I have never known him to behave, act, or in any way conduct himself as to demean this place. He has held it in respect, and that makes it a better place when we do that. But I also want to remind the Senate, since it has not been stated here on the floor as I know of, that in the energy and water appropriations bill it was my privilege, at the behest of some of Dale Bumpers' good friends here in the Senate, with the help of his staff and others, to include a resolution honoring him for his diligent and hard work on behalf of the public domain in the United States--the forest lands, the wilderness, the parks. In that bill, the resolution says we want him to be known for as long as there is an Arkansas. Thus, we took eight wilderness areas that are in his State that he had a lot to do with, and for name purposes we made all of them part of one wilderness called the Dale Bumpers Wilderness Area. That is now 91,000 acres in total that will bear your name. I know many other things could be done to indicate our esteem for you, but many of us thought that this might just be one that would strike you as quite appropriate. And we hope so. It is now the law of the land. The President signed it about 22 hours ago. Thus, I am here saying it in your presence. I thank you personally on behalf of our side of the aisle for everything you have done.

Mr. DOMENICI. Then, might I say to Senator Bumpers, that aisle, from your podium on down here to the first step into the well, is going to get a deserved rest when you leave. That aisle and the carpet there is going to take a new breath and say there is nobody walking up and down on top of us, because Dale Bumpers is not walking, walking the floor there as he delivers his eloquent speeches on the Senate floor. I only say that by way of the great respect we have for the way you talk to us, and talk to the American people. I am very pleased that you used that little 30 feet of carpet and hall as your place to talk.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today, with great pleasure, I introduce ``The Rural Employment in Telecommunications Industry Act of 1998.'' The introduction of this Bill marks a historic opportunity for rural communities to create jobs within the telecommunications industry. The Bill establishes a program to train residents of low income rural areas for employment in telecommunications industry jobs located in those same rural areas. As many of my colleagues know, I have an initiative called ``rural payday'' and I believe this Bill is yet another step in creating jobs for our rural areas. All too often a rural area is characterized by a high number of low income residents and a high unemployment rate. Moreover, our rural areas are often dependent upon a small number of employers or a single industry for employment opportunities. Consequently, when there is a plant closing or a downturn in the economy or a slowdown in the area's industry the already present problems are only compounded. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and talk about New Mexico. While New Mexico may be the 5th largest state by size with its beautiful mountains, desert, and Great Plains and vibrant cities such as Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces it is also a very rural state. The Northwest and Southeast portions of the state are currently experiencing difficulties as a result of the downturn in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, the community of Roswell has been dealt a blow with the closing of the Levi Straus manufacturing plant. As I stated before, rural areas that simply do not have the resources of more metropolitan areas can be simply devastated by a single event or downturn in the economy. And that Mr. President is why I am introducing ``The Rural Employment in Telecommunications Industry Act of 1998.'' The Bill will allow the Secretary of Labor to establish a program to promote rural employment in the telecommunications industry by providing grants to states with low income rural areas. The program will be a win win proposition for all involved because employers choosing to participate in the project by bringing jobs to the rural area will be assured of a highly skilled workforce. The program will provide residents with intensive services to train them for the new jobs in the telecommunications industry. The intensive services will include customized training and appropriate remedial training, support services and placement of the individual in one the new jobs created by the program. And that is what this bill is about, providing people with the tools needed to succeed. With these steps we are embarking on the road of providing our rural areas throughout our nation with a vehicle to create jobs. We are creating opportunities and an environment where our citizens can succeed and our communities can be vibrant. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Valles Caldera in Northern New Mexico is a place you visit for a day, and long to return to for a life time. It is nature at its most extraordinary--an almost perfectly round bowl formed by a collapsed volcano. It is a place with rolling meadows, crystal-clear streams, roaming elk, Ponderosa pines and quaking Aspen trees, and Golden eagles. This legislation guarantees that this very special place will be there for future generations to visit and remember. I am very proud to be introducing legislation that will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a truly unique 95,000 acre ``working ranch'' in New Mexico, known alternatively as the Baca Ranch, the Valle Grande, and the Valles Caldera. Independently, but as importantly, this legislation also addresses longstanding problems encountered by Federal land managers in disposing of surplus federal property and the acquisition of private inholdings within federal management areas. The former provides a unique solution to the management of a unique property, while the latter builds on existing laws and provides resources dedicated to the consolidation of federal agency land holdings. In north-central New Mexico there is a truly unique working ranch on an historic Mexican land grant known as Baca Location No. 1. The Ranch is currently owned and managed by the Baca Land and Cattle Company, and it comprises most of a collapsed, extinct volcano known as the Valles Caldera. This ranch also contains innumerable significant cultural, historic, recreational, ecological, and productive resources. The bill I introduce today is the result of months of negotiation with the Administration, Senator Bingaman, and Congressman Redmond. We have incorporated ideas from groups interested in the acquisition of the truly unique Baca Ranch. Many Americans, especially New Mexicans have expressed a desire for the federal government to purchase the Ranch. After months of research and consideration, I met with President Clinton on Air Force One while we were both returning to Washington from New Mexico to discuss the possibility of this land acquisition. Because the nature of the property requires a unique operational program for appropriate development and preservation, I approached him with an innovative trust structure for the management of the Baca Ranch. This trust would manage the ranch with appropriate public input and governmental oversight. I indicated that I was not interested in having the ranch managed under current federal agency practices. The President expressed enthusiasm for making this concept a reality, and we agreed on a Statement of Principles to govern the acquisition of the Baca Ranch at the end of July. This unique working ranch has been well maintained and preserved by the current owners. In fact, if ever there was an example of sterling stewardship of a piece of property, this is it. The legislation introduced today certainly cannot pass this year: unfortunately, time has run out for the 105th Congress, but many concerns and ideas about federal purchase of the property will be discussed at hearings upon reintroduction in the 106th Congress. While there is consenus that this property should be acquired, we do not yet know the cost of the property. The Baca Ranch is estimated to be worth approximately $100 to $125 million, but the appraisal has not yet been given to the Forest Service or made public. Therefore, the exact cost of acquisition has yet to be determined. This is the largest purchase of public land by the Forest Service in at least 25 years, therefore, it is imperative that careful consideration is given to not only the purchase, but to the management of the property as well. In past years, federal land management agencies have been criticized for their stewardship of public lands. I find it ironic that many of the groups who wish to bring this ranch into government ownership are the same groups who, in recent years, have initiated relentless litigation against the Forest Service and BLM alleging poor management of federal lands. However, diverse interests have come together to reach agreement on the trust management of the Ranch, and Congressman Redmond and I have worked hard in both Houses of Congress to obtain funding for purchase. Any funding at this point should be viewed as earnest money, and will be subject to this authorization and agreement on the fair market value for the property. The parties have really worked hard in framing this legislation, and there are still a few issues we would like to work out. Not the least of which includes the interest expressed by the Santa Clara Pueblo in purchasing land outside the Caldera, but contains the headwaters of the Santa Clara Creek. Negotiations between the Pueblo, the Administration, the current owners of the property, and the congressional delegation on how to resolve this issue was not completed prior to today's introduction. However, all parties are interested in continuing discussion regarding a potential Santa Clara purchase of property adjacent to their pueblo. I also note that Congressman Redmond has expressed specific interest in addressing other Native American issues regarding the Ranch acquisition. I have visited the Baca Ranch, and I can tell you that it is one beautiful piece of property. The Valles Caldera is one of the world's largest resurgent lava domes with potential geothermal activity. The depression from a hugh volcanic eruption over a million years ago is more than a half-mile deep and fifteen miles across at its widest point. The land was originally granted to the heirs of Don Luis Maria Cabeza de Vaca under a settlement enacted by Congress in 1860. Since that time, the property has remained virtually intact as a single, large, tract of land. Historical evidence in the form of old logging camps and other artifacts, and a review of the history of territorial New Mexico clearly show the importance of this land over many generations for the rearing of domesticated livestock, and as a timber supply for local inhabitants. Several film sets have been left standing on the property, representing a significant part of the history of the American film industry and its depiction of the American West. The careful husbandry of the Ranch by the Dunigan family, the current owners, including selective harvesting of timber, limited grazing and hunting, and the use of proscribed fire, have preserved a mix of healthy range and timber land with significant species diversity providing a model for sustainable land development and use. The Ranch's natural beauty and abundant resources, and its proximity to large municipal populations could provide numerous recreational opportunities for hiking, fishing, camping, cross-country skiing, and hunting. Mr. President, the Baca Location is a unique working ranch. It is not a wilderness area, as in the words of the Wilderness Act, ``untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does not remain.'' Man has been there for many generations, and will remain for many to come. Similarly, it is not a resource that could be run well as a national park. This ranch can best be protected for future generations by continuing its operation as a working asset through a unique management structure. This legislation provides unique management under a trust that may allow for its eventual operation to become financially self- sustaining. Mr. President, recent indication by the current owners of the Baca Location that they wish to sell the ranch has created an opportunity for us to acquire it into public ownership and allow for appropriate public access and enjoyment of these lands for the first time since 1860. Because of the ranch's unique character, however, I am not interested in having it managed under the usual federal authorities, as is typical of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or the National Park Service. Under the current state of affairs on our public lands, Forest Service and BLM management is constantly hounded by litigation initiated by some of the same groups that wish to bring this ranch into government ownership. I do not want to take this property, put it in that situation, and then claim we have done a great thing. This legislation represents an opportunity to experiment with a different kind of public land management scheme. Burdensome regulations, and litigation resulting therefrom, have brought federal land management practices rapidly towards gridlock. The Valles Caldera National Preserve will serve as a model to explore alternative means of federal management and will provide the American people with opportunities to enjoy the Valles Caldera and its many resources for generations to come. This trust idea, based on similar legislation for federal management of the Presidio in San Francisco, sets in motion a truly unique management scheme befitting this truly unique place. I am willing to take a chance on an innovative approach because I believe that the current quagmire of federal land management simply does not do justice to this very special place. The unique nature of the Valles Caldera, and its resources, requires a unique management program, dedicated to appropriate development and preservation under the principle of the highest and best use of the ranch in the interest of the public. Mr. President, title I of this legislation provides the framework necessary to fulfil that objective. It authorizes the acquisition of the Baca ranch by the appropriate Federal agency. At the same time, it establishes a government-owned corporation, called the Valles Caldera Trust, whose sole responsibility is to ensure that the ranch is managed in a manner that will preserve its current unique character, and provide enumerable opportunities for the American people to enjoy its splendor. Most importantly to me, however, the legislation will allow for the ranch's continued operation as a working asset for the people of north-central New Mexico, without further drawing on the thinly- stretched resources of the Federal land management agencies. I am looking forward to hearings on this legislation next year, and know that the legislative process shall enlighten us further as to the complex nature of the Ranch. I, personally, am greatly looking forward to seeing an value estimate of the land prior to authorization. While valued between $37 and $55 million in 1980, I have heard that the Baca ranch is currently estimated to be worth approximately $100 to $125 million. I do not know how such inflation will affect the likelihood of the location's federal acquisition. I do know that we have waited patiently for many months for a promised appraisal from the current owners, but an appraisal has not yet been complete nor have any other offers to purchase the land been made. Therefore, the exact cost of acquisition has yet to be determined. Before we commit large sums of federal taxpayer dollars to purchase new property, it seems prudent to provide a solution for the orderly disposal of surplus federal property and to meet our current obligations to those who hold lands within federal properties. I would like to emphasize that while both portions of this bill are important to federal land management, both in New Mexico and nationwide, my intention is not to tie federal acquisition of the Baca upon disposition of surplus federal land. Instead, I feel this legislation independently addresses the acquisition of this unique property for public use and enjoyment, while solving current land management problems. Currently, New Mexico has approximately one-third of its land in public ownership or management. I agree that these public lands are an important natural resource that require our most thoughtful management. In order to conserve our existing National treasures for future use and enjoyment, we must devise, with the concurrence of other members of Congress and the President, a definite plan and timetable to dispose of surplus land through sale or exchange into private ownership. Title II of this legislation addresses the orderly disposition of surplus federal property on a state by state basis. It also addresses the problem of what is known as ``inholdings'' within federally managed areas. There are currently more than 45 million acres of privately owned lands trapped within the boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, national forests, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. The location of these tracts, referred to as inholdings, makes the exercise of private property rights difficult for the land owner. In addition, management of the public lands is made more cumbersome for the federal land managers. In many cases, inholders have been waiting generations for the federal government to set aside funding and prioritize the acquisition of their property. With rapidly growing public demand for the use of public lands, it is increasingly difficult for federal managers to address problems created by the existence of inholdings in many areas. This legislation directs the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to survey inholdings existing within Federal land management units, and to establish a priority for their acquisition, on a willing seller basis, in the order of those which have existed as inholdings for the longest time to those most recently being incorporated into the Federal unit. Closely related to the problem created by inholdings within Federal land management units, is the abundance of public domain land which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined it no longer needs to fulfil its mission. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM has identified an estimated four to six million acres of public domain lands for disposal, and the agency anticipates that additional public land will be similarly identified, with public input and consultation with State and local governments as required by law. Mr. President, let me simply clarify that point--the BLM already has authority under an existing law, FLPMA, to exchange or sell lands out of Federal ownership. Through its public process for land use planning, when the agency has determined that certain lands would be more useful to the public under private or local governmental control, it is already authorized to dispose of these lands, either by sale or exchange. The sale or exchange of this land which I have often referred to as ``surplus,'' would be beneficial to local communities, adjoining land owners, and BLM land mangers, alike. First, it would allow for the reconfiguration of land ownership patterns to better facilitate resource management. Second, it would contribute to administrative efficiency within federal land management units, by allowing for better allocation of fiscal and human resources within the agency. Finally, in certain locations, the sale of public land which has been identified for disposal is the best way for the public to realize a fair value for this land. The problem, Mr. President, is that an orderly process for the efficient disposition of lands identified for disposal does not currently exist. This legislation addresses that problem by directing the BLM to fulfil all legal requirements for the transfer of these lands out of Federal ownership, and providing a dedicated source of funding generated from the sale of these lands to continue this process. Additionally, this legislation authorizes the use of the proceeds generated from these lands to purchase inholdings from willing sellers. This will enhance the ability of the Federal land management agencies to work cooperatively with private land owners, and with State and local governments, to consolidate the ownership of public and private land in a manner that would allow for better overall resource management. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that this program will in no way detract from other programs with similar purposes. The bill clearly states that proceeds generated from the disposal of public land, and dedicated to the acquisition of inholdings, will supplement, and not replace, funds appropriated for that purpose through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, the bill states that the Bureau of Land Management should rely on non-Federal entities to conduct appraisals and other research required for the sale or exchange of these lands, allowing for the least disruption of existing land and resource management programs. Mr. President, this bill has been a long time in the making. For over a year, now, I have been working with and talking to knowledgeable people, both inside and outside of the current administration, to develop many of the ideas embodied in this bill. In recent weeks, my staff and I have worked closely with the administration on this legislation. I feel comfortable in stating that by working together, we have reached agreement in principle on the best way to proceed with these very important issues involving the management of public land resources, namely; the acquisition and unique management plan for the Baca ranch in New Mexico, and just as importantly, the disposition of surplus public lands in combination with a program to address problems associated with inholdings within our Federal land management units. Mr. President, I have committed to the administration to continue to work with them on three or four areas of this bill, where concerns remain. I have full confidence, however, that we can address these issues through the legislative process in the next Congress. For example, the need for additional roads, parking, visitor facilities, and water and mineral rights are also important issues that must be resolved. However, we are very luck to have the pleasure of a bipartisan, administration approved, legislative concept from which to work. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will schedule hearings to address the many issues regarding Federal purchase of the Baca Ranch early in the 106th Congress. Hopefully, by that time, an appraisal will be available for review. Congress has tried to resolve the difficult challenges in acquiring this property before, and failed; cooperation among the parties may bring success this time around. I believe that in the end, we will be able to stand together and tell the American people that we truly have accomplished two great and innovative things with this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Statement of Principles be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. One of the ``emergencies'' is a real emergency. That is to help agriculture in the United States. But let me suggest, to help agriculture in the United States, we sent the President a bill. We had $4 billion in the emergency funding for the farmers of the United States. When the President of the United States asked us for emergency money--which he knew people like Senator Domenici would start adding up to see how much more you are spending of the surplus than the Republicans planned to use in tax cuts--the President asked for $2.3 billion for agriculture. We gave him $4 billion. But in the meantime, a distinguished Senator on the minority side, whom I have great respect for, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, introduced a bill saying, ``We want $7.2 billion as an emergency for agriculture. And we want to wipe out the new law which is only 18 months old called Freedom to Farm because we currently have an emergency''--$7.2 billion. The President asked for $2.3 billion. Now we get a communication from the President that says, ``I asked you for $2.3 billion, but essentially I want Daschle's bill, too.'' Now, believe it or not, we sent him a bill with $4 billion. He vetoed it and said, ``Now you've got to give me what Senator Daschle's bill has.'' Mr. President, we have had the best people in this body working on agriculture who put this emergency package together. And believe me, the $4 billion package would make the American agriculture whole. There would be no net loss of income to the agriculture community. They know it. The experts know it. But because it is an election year, and because of the turmoil that exists that I have alluded to earlier in my conversation with the Senate here, the President now holds agriculture programs hostage. If we do not do it his way, we will close down the Department of Agriculture. Frankly, if we did, it would be the President's--it would be on his shoulders, not ours. But you know, it will get worked out. I just thought everybody ought to know how these things work. Now, should it matter? We have worked for 20 years to get a balanced budget and a balanced budget agreement. The result has been nothing but good news for America. Almost everybody that even touched the issue lays claim to having done it all, including the President who claims the entire economic well-being of the country is because he is President. He can do that. That is fine. The truth of the matter is, there are plenty--plenty--who deserve credit, including the Federal Reserve, including Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in the Senate, the same in the House. But it really started happening, in terms of restraining the budget, when both bodies became Republican. And we can go back and trace that. That is when we fixed welfare to save money, that is when we changed Medicaid to save big dollars, and on and on. Let's go home, let's wrap this up in the next few days, but let's remember the facts. And let's not let this superheavy, politically charged environment color things such that we are going to take that surplus we take so much pride in, and find out in 3 or 4 months that there is only 25, 30, 40 percent of it left, even though we were told, ``You're going to really use it up if you cut taxes.'' What happened? We did not cut taxes, and it got used up. Interesting. I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to talk about three or four things. I am going to try my very, very best to be factual. I am concerned that here, in these waning days, considering the situation that exists on Pennsylvania Avenue, that the President finds himself in a very supercharged political environment. I don't think I had to say that. I think everybody knows that. But I want to suggest that yesterday afternoon, or whatever time of day it was that the President had a quickly called press conference to talk about the Congress of the United States and what we have and haven't done, and particularly to say that we aren't taking care of his education programs, and unless we do, he is going to keep us here. Normally, when I say ``Mr. President,'' I am addressing the Chair, because that is what we are supposed to do. If we care to address anyone here, we do it through ``Mr. President.'' Permit me to address the Mr. President on Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bill Clinton. President Clinton, you have been known to have a fantastic memory. As a matter of fact, I think you acknowledged that at one point recently, although, as with many of us who grow older, you did indicate that with the passage of time and the pressure of many things to do, that that great memory fails every now and then. Now, Mr. President--Bill Clinton--I am suggesting that maybe your memory failed you when you gave that speech yesterday. So let me tell you what I remember about your education programs that you claim we have not funded. I want everybody to know that on many things regarding budgets and programs, you can look to the budget that the President sends up here to see what it asks for and what we are giving him. This is the budget for the year we are now appropriating, which started technically on October 1. Here it is. I had occasion, shortly after it was issued, to have the education parts of this reviewed. I remember coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate to say to the President, which OMB agreed to, ``Mr. President, the official scorekeeper and official evaluator of budgets for the U.S. Congress says that your request for money for two education programs--interest reduction so that schools can afford buildings they need and so-called 100,000 teachers so we can lower the classroom ratio--those two programs were found by the official budget analysts to not properly have been placed in this budget. What they said is, they break the budget that you just signed, Mr. President.'' Point No. 1. Point No. 2: If they are so important--and I am not denying that the President feels they are, and maybe many Senators feel they are--do you know what the President did in asking us to pay for them? He didn't provide the money to pay for them. He did not. It is not in this budget. He said, ``When you pass the cigarette tax, I would like you to use some of it for education.'' Let me just say, that sort of says to me, ``I couldn't find room in the budget for these things that I am telling you are very important. So if we get a cigarette tax, we'll pay for them.'' Do you know what happened? After weeks of debate, we didn't get a cigarette tax. Mr. President, what I know is that the appropriators in the U.S. Senate, in the bill that takes care of education--so there will be no misunderstanding, in this regular budget you asked for $31.4 billion for education. Look at the appropriations bill, Mr. President. Ask OMB, your official people who look at it. See how much the Senate gave you for education funding for the year you are complaining about. Interesting, $31.4 billion--exactly what you asked for. Now, Mr. President, you tell the American people you are going to keep us here until we do this, as if we are the ones to blame for it not being done--that is, those two programs. I am living in a different world, or the President's memory has failed him, because do you understand, I say to my fellow Senators, that the President is asking for that money now for these two programs--and for many Senators it is doubtful whether that is the way to help education, but, nonetheless, let's just follow it. He is now saying he is going to keep us here until we do it. But guess what. He knows, his helpers know, that he has to find programs within the Government to cut, which are called offsets, in order to pay for those two programs. He knows that, because this budget says he didn't have room for it in here. He was making room through a cigarette tax that never happened. As of right now, 2:25 p.m., I am not aware that the President has submitted a means to pay for those programs. I am not aware that the President has told us how to pay for them if we wanted to adopt them. All I am asking is that we depoliticize a few of these issues, or at least state the facts correctly. We do not deserve blame for not including two programs, which, I repeat, are not paid for in this budget, when as of today, 11 days into the fiscal year, we don't know how the President intends to pay for them. All right? That is the first point I would like to make today. Second point: There has been a lot of discussion this morning on the floor of the Senate by some Senators about this issue of a Patients' Bill of Rights. I think the country understands, but just so it won't be left unaddressed here this morning, let me again refresh our collective memories. With everything that we have to do, we took 3\1/2\ weeks to debate the Patients' Bill of Rights on the floor of the Senate. The minority can say we didn't let it pass, but, Mr. President, the majority can say, they didn't let it pass. They had a bill; we had a bill. We had more than 50 votes; they did not. They kept our bill from passing which had more than sufficient votes. So I ask, who is to blame for a bill not passing? Again, I want to be practical, I can't say it is all their fault, the minority's fault, but clearly it is certainly not all the Republicans' fault. What was the really big issue between the two parties? And I leave this one to the American people. The principal issue that divided us was the lawyers of the United States. They support the minority heavily--not all of them, not all of them, but those who litigate. What did they want in the bill that we didn't want in the bill? We didn't want a new right to go to court to sue managed care entities, HMOs. We left the right to sue the doctors and the professionals, but we didn't want to create a new right to sue the HMOs in courts of law for damages. We, on this side, for the most part--not unanimously, but for the most part--have adopted a sense about health care, and it says lawyers and lawsuits don't deliver health care; lawyers and lawsuits make health care cost more. We could not see why, if the minority and the President think it is such an enormous new status and set of rights that we should adopt--and we tend to agree--why would the minority that didn't have the votes to pass here but we had the votes to pass ours-- why would they deny a bill's passage based upon, they want lawyers back in the loop and we don't want lawyers back in the loop? I leave it to those listening and those who will look at the Record. See if I am correct that that was the biggest stumbling block, and see whether the President and the minority caused the Patients' Bill of Rights bill to fail or not. Those are two points, and I want to make a third. Mr. President, in the election past, two things worked for the President. He is probably the best public relations President we have ever had. Two things worked for him as certain--as certain--as when you write a name in ink on a piece of paper with indelible ink; it will be there. And those two things that he has used over and over--you need not think; they will pop into your mind--Social Security and education. Right? What we have seen, I say to my friend from Alabama, we have seen the Social Security card played. How? ``No tax cuts out of the surplus because it jeopardizes Social Security.'' That is the typical every 2- year issue. It is raised again. Let me suggest to Mr. President, Bill Clinton, you know, Mr. President, that we are about, in the next 72 hours, to pass a very big appropriations bill. Maybe Pennsylvania Avenue does not know this, but here is the best estimate I have. We are about to spend--spend; not tax, spend--$18 billion of the surplus that was supposed to be saved for Social Security. Got it? The same pot that the President says, ``Don't touch it. It's for Social Security,'' we are about to spend $18 billion of it for so-called ``emergencies.'' And I will get to that in a moment. Friends here in the Senate and those listening, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say to Republicans, ``You can't use the surplus to give back to the American people in taxes, even if it's a tiny amount, but you can spend the surplus for bigger Government.'' You know, it just does not wash. Both are diminishing, to some extent, the surplus of $1.6 trillion that we expect in the next decade. I do not think it will be that much. In fact, the year we are in right now is supposed to have an $80 billion surplus. I think it will be $20 billion off because of economics. And then we will spend $18-, $20 billion of it that we did not plan to spend. Then we will have something for defense next year that we need, and there will probably be none left for tax cuts. That is what it looks like. So I want to just talk about one of the emergencies. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am on the list for 20 minutes, and I have a 2:30 beginning on the budget process working with the White House on some offsets. How much longer did the Senator need?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions from Alabama. He was here ahead of me and, frankly, had a more legitimate right to speak now than I, and I appreciate his permitting me to proceed.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today the United States Senate has taken a historic step in preserving one of America's treasures--Route 66. S. 2133, the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Act of 1998, will preserve the unique cultural resources along the famous Route 66 corridor and authorize the Interior Secretary to provide assistance through the Park Service. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, introduced a companion bill (HR. 4513) in the House of Representatives. I am hoping that body will promptly act on this bill with the changes proposed by the distinguished Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Chafee. I introduced the ``Route 66 Study Act of 1990,'' which directed the National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I introduced S. 2133 this June authorizing the National Park Service to join with federal, state and private efforts to preserve aspects of the historic Route 66 corridor, the nation's most important thoroughfare for east-west migration in the 20th century. The Administration testified in favor of this legislation, with some modifications. We've made some good changes to the bill, and Senator Chafee's amendment furthers progress for success of this Park Service program. This legislation authorizes a funding level over 10 years and stresses that we want the federal government to support grassroots efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. New Mexico added to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of our colorful culture and heritage. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile Route 66 stretched from Chicago to Santa Monica, California. It rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it went through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants, and Gallup. Route 66 allowed generations of vacationers to travel to previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures of the Southwest and Far West. S. 2133 will facilitate greater coordination in federal, state and private efforts to preserve structures and other cultural resources of the historic Route 66 corridor, the 20th century route equivalent to the Santa Fe Trail. This bill authorizes the National Park Service to support state, local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and make grants. The Park Service will also act as a clearing house for communication among federal, state, local, private and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of the Route 66 corridor. As we draw to the close of this century, there is more interest in trying to save Route 66. I sincerely hope that this legislation is quickly passed on the House floor. The time is now to provide tangible means of assistance to preserve this special highway.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4104, the Conference Agreement on the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Bill for FY 1999. This bill provides new budget authority of $26.9 billion and new outlays of $23.2 billion to finance the operations of the Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Financial Management Service. The bill also finances the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Personnel Management, the General Services Administration, and other agencies that perform central government functions. I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for producing a bill that is within the Subcommittee's revised 302(b) allocation. I also commend the Chairman's strong commitment to law enforcement throughout this bill, including support for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. When outlays from prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals $26.9 billion in BA and $26.0 billion in outlays. The total bill is at the Senate subcommittee's revised 302(b) allocation for nondefense discretionary budget authority and outlays. The subcommittee is also at its Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund allocation for BA and outlays. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the Conference Agreement on H.R. 4104. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased at the Senate's passage of S. 2402, the Old Jicarilla Administrative Site Conveyance Act of 1998. This legislation allows for transfer by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus administrative site of the Carson National Forest to San Juan College. The site is known as the old Jicarilla Ranger District Station, near the village of Gobernador, New Mexico. The Jicarilla Station will continue to be used for public purposes, including educational and recreational purposes of the college. The Forest Service determined that these ten acres are of no further use to them, since the Jicarilla District Ranger moved into a new administrative facility in the town of Bloomfield, New Mexico. The facility has had no occupants for several years, and the Forest Service recently testified that the improvements on the site are surplus, and endorsed passage of this bill to provide long-term benefits for the people of San Juan County and the students and faculty of San Juan College. Clearly, this legislation deserves prompt approval in the House and signature by the President because it is noncontroversial and the land can readily be put to good use for San Juan College and the area residents. We also need to put this property in the hands of the college so it can protect the area from further deterioration and fire. Over one third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the federal government, and therefore finding appropriate sites for community and educational purposes can be difficult. S. 2402 is a win-win bill in providing facilities and lands to San Juan College and removing unwanted and unused land and facilities from federal ownership. I urge prompt passage in the House of Representatives. The committee amendment was agreed to. The bill (S. 2402), as amended, was considered read the third time and passed. The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to convey certain lands in San Juan County, New Mexico, to San Juan College.''.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to see the Federal Research Investment Act presented for approval to the Senate. This bill, S. 2217, is one that I've supported through-out its history, because it addresses the health of our nation's science and technology base. Our science and technology base is vital to the nation's future. Any number of studies have confirmed its importance. As one excellent example, the National Innovation Summit, organized by MIT with the Council on Competitiveness, confirmed that the integrity of that base is one of the cornerstones to our future economic prosperity. At that Summit, many of the nation's top CEOs emphasized that the nation's climate for innovation is a major determinant of our ability to maintain and advance our high standard of living and strong economy. Advanced technologies are responsible for driving half of our economic growth since World War II, and that growth has developed our economy into the envy of the world. We need to continually refresh our stock of new products and processes that enable good jobs for our citizens in the face of increasing global challenges to all our principal industries. The Federal Research Investment Act continues the goal first expressed in S. 1305, that I co-sponsored with Senators Gramm, Lieberman, and Bingaman, to double the nation's investment in science and technology. Among other improvements, S. 2217 proposes a more realistic time scale for achieving this expanded support. This doubling must be accomplished within a balanced budget that avoids deficits, thus a longer period is a better choice. That balanced budget is essential, it enables the economic health that is fundamental to our ability to really use advanced technologies. The new bill continues to emphasizes a broad range of research targets, from fundamental and frontier exploration, through pre- competitive engineering research. This emphasis on a spectrum of research maturity is absolutely critical. The nation is not well served by a focus on so-called ``basic'' research that can open new fields, but then leave those fields wanting for resources to develop these new ideas to a pre-competitive stage applicable to future commercial products and processes. The new bill addresses a spectrum of research fields with its emphasis on expanding S&T funding in many agencies. We need technical advances in many fields simultaneously. In more and more cases, the best new ideas are not flowing from explorations in a single narrow field, but instead are coming from inter-disciplinary studies that bring experts from diverse fields together for fruitful collaboration. This is especially evident in medical and health fields, where combinations of medical science with many other specialities are critical to the latest health care advances. This new bill has additional features that weren't part of the earlier one. It proposes to utilize the National Academy of Science in developing approaches to evaluation of program and project performance. This should lead to better understanding of how GPRA goals and scientific programs can be best coordinated. The new role for the National Academy can help define criteria to guide decisions on continued and future funding. The bill also sets up procedures to use these evaluations to terminate federal programs that are not performing at acceptable levels. The new bill incorporates a set of well-developed principles for federal funding of science and technology. These principles were developed by the Senate Science and Technology Caucus. Those principles, when carefully applied, can lead to better choices among the many opportunities for federal S&T funding. The new bill also incorporates recommendations for independent merit-based review of federal S&T programs, which should further strengthen them. Many aspects of the Federal Research Investment Act support and compliment key points in the new study released by Representative Vern Ehlers just recently. His study, ``Unlocking our Future,'' will serve as an important focal point for continuing discussions on the critical goal of strengthening our nation's science and technology base. I've certainly appreciated interactions with Representative Ehlers as he developed his study and as S. 2217 was developed. The new Federal Research Investment Act builds and improves on the goals of the previous bill. With S. 2217, we will build stronger federal Science and Technology programs that will underpin our nation's ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace of the 21st century.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have asked for this time today to address two serious and interrelated concerns: One, the President's plans to intervene in Kosovo; and, two, the already evident crisis in readiness of the U.S. military. There are some who believe that these two concerns should be dealt with separately. Some may argue that linking the two is merely an excuse for U.S. inaction. I wish to be very clear. Developments in Kosovo may compel the United States and our allies to intervene. However, this intervention should not be paid for by further hollowing out of the Armed Forces. I and many of my colleagues, will not support airstrikes in Kosovo, and especially a ground force presence, unless the President agrees to submit a budget that addresses the related readiness and operational tempo requirements of the U.S. military. Also, we must be careful not to believe that there is an easy or inexpensive long-term solution to the problems in Kosovo. The administration would have us believe that NATO airstrikes will somehow solve the problem. I, and many colleagues, disagree. The recent massacre of ethnic Albanians in two small villages in Kosovo has heightened awareness and condemnation of Serbian aggression. Powerful airstrikes and military action could send a strong and unambiguous message to the Serbian leader. As in Bosnia, empty threats of NATO action never does anything to get the job done. There is good reason to be concerned about 400,000 Albanians forced from their homes as winter approaches. I am concerned. I am deeply concerned about that. But I am more concerned about involving U.S. lives in ill-conceived military campaigns. I am deeply concerned that we will be sending an already weary and overextended military into a situation for which there is no quick and easy solution. Mr. President, as you know, the U.S. defense budget has declined for the past several years. At the same time, nontraditional deployments have stretched an already extended military force to its limits. This is largely the result of downsizing of our force structure while increasing the number and the frequency of deployments overseas for purposes other than a war. We have been asking our Armed Forces to do more with less for several years. They are finally admitting that they cannot do more with what the President has given them. Yet, the administration is asking them to still do more. Now I and many of my colleagues wish to ask the administration one question: Will you do more? Will you ensure that readiness does not suffer further? Will you stop the hollowing out of our military forces? Some may think that this readiness issue isn't real. I am sure there are those who think that there is no crisis in readiness. Well, I believe that a few examples of the crisis in readiness are absolutely persuasive. Here are just a few of the symptoms of this crisis: One, Navy pilot retention has sunk to an all-time low of 10 percent. This is the lowest in recorded history of pilot retention programs. Air Force pilot retention is at 30 percent, and it is projected to decline further. The Air Force is now 700 pilots short. The aircraft deployed on primary, peacekeeping deployments--such as Bosnia--are being ``cannibalized,'' meaning, they are being stripped for spare parts to keep at least a few flying. It is not uncommon for this to happen at a low-priority unit in the United States; however, allowing this to happen in the front-line deployments like Bosnia where we might soon go into combat is inexcusable. Aircraft carriers are being deployed with personnel slots empty. A recent report has one carrier on a peacekeeping mission with a crew that is lacking 1,000 persons to perform the essential tasks. In other words, the United States has aircraft carriers on missions that are lacking about 20 percent of what is considered a full crew. How ready are these carriers to perform their missions? We have Army units arriving for critical combat training at the Army's national training center in California with mechanics and ``mounted'' infantry simply missing. These units have junior noncommissioned officers filling roles traditionally filled by senior experienced noncommissioned officers. This is a problem that permeates every branch of the Armed Forces. We simply are not retaining the seasoned, well-trained military personnel and professionals. I and Senator Stevens are commissioning an important study by GAO to find out exactly why our military persons are leaving the service in unprecedented numbers. The troops that I personally visited in the Persian Gulf made it clear that morale is low there. They are tired of constantly being separated from their families. I believe this separation would be tolerable if the operational tempo required of them were humane. I believe the separation would also be eased, if they were assured that their families had adequate housing and food on the table. I believe the separation would be tolerable and their loyalty to the military secure, if it weren't for the fact that they also question the purpose of the missions. Mr. President, I believe we are failing own soldiers on all counts. That brings us to the question of money. There is simply not enough money in the defense budget as it is currently projected to do everything that needs to be done. There is an effort underway to provide emergency supplemental funding for military readiness. I support that effort. However, this will not solve the bigger problems. The U.S. defense budget has been in a constant decline since 1985. In the case of Bosnia, the administration has relied on Congress to repeatedly supply ``emergency supplemental'' moneys to provide for a ``contingency'' operation that started in December, 1995. We are currently supporting over 8,000 troops in Bosnia, and the President persists in asking us to join him in a charade that the U.S. presence in Bosnia is an ``unforeseen emergency.'' The budget shortfalls are eroding readiness, but, more importantly, they are contributing to a precipitous decline in the moral of the soldiers in uniform. Mr. President, we believe it would be an unacceptable policy to send our troops into harm's way without addressing the scarcity of spare parts and relevant readiness issues that currently permeate the forces. Of course, I am not prepared to support the half baked, not thought through ideas that I fear are still being contemplated by this administration for what currently serves as our ``policy'' in Bosnia and Kosovo. We must send a clear signal to the administration that we will not paint ourselves into another Bosnia, especially without the administration's assurance that our military will not once again be asked to do more with even less. Before we commit American lives to another dangerous mission overseas, we must clearly define our objectives and be realistic in the commitment required to achieve them. More importantly, we must give our men and women in uniform sufficient assurance that their loyalty is not a one-way street. This can only be achieved by stopping the decline in defense budgets and ensuring a higher quality of life for our soldiers. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished Senator from Texas in these remarks this morning.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Under the order, how much time does each Senator have in morning business?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask I be given the 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has passed S. 736--the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Land Transfer Act. I, along with Congressman Skeen, have been working to convey tracts of land--paid for by Carlsbad Irrigation District and referred to as ``acquired lands''--back to the district, during the past several congresses. I introduced this bill in May of 1997 in order to transfer lands back to the rightful owners. This legislation will not affect operations at the New Mexico State park at Brantley Dam, or the operations and ownership of the dam itself. Furthermore, the bill will not affect recreation activities in the area. This legislation is specific to the Carlsbad project in New Mexico, and directs the Carlsbad Irrigation District to continue to manage the lands as they have been in the past, for the purposes for which the project was constructed. I believe this is a fair and equitable bill that has been developed over years of negotiations. The Carlsbad Irrigation District has had operations and maintenance responsibilities for the past 66 years. It met all the repayment obligations to the Government in 1991, and it's about time we let CID have what is rightfully theirs. This legislation accomplishes three things: Conveys title of acquired lands and facilities to Carlsbad Irrigation District; allows the District to assume management of leases and the benefits of the receipts from these acquired lands; and sets a 180-day deadline for the transfer, establishing a 50-50 cost-sharing standard for carrying out the transfer. The Carlsbad Irrigation Project is a single-purpose project created in 1905 by the Bureau of Reclamation, acquiring all facilities, lands and water rights of the privately-owned Pecos Irrigation Company. The CID has had operations and maintenance responsibilities for the irrigation and drainage system since 1932. During the 104th Congress, the Carlsbad Irrigation District presented testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on one occasion, and before the House Committee on Resources on two occasions. Additionally, the administration expressed on several occasions before these two committees that they want to move forward with acquired land transfers where they make sense. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Eluid Martinez, has informed the district and me that he believes that the Carlsbad project is one of several projects where the Bureau would like to pursue transfer opportunities. It is about time that we pass this legislation to provide the Bureau with the ability to accomplish their stated goal in a fair and equitable manner. This transfer shifts responsibility from the Federal Government back to a local entity, and creates opportunity for the district to improve and enhance the management of these lands. After a long wait, we have gotten administration support for this transfer in language substituted by the Senate Energy Committee, and have gained support from the Democratic side of the aisle. I hope that the House of Representatives will act quickly on this legislation so that the Carlsbad Irrigation District will promptly begin getting the benefits for that which they have paid.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as United States Senators, we are often fortunate to have people of exceptional ability work for us. It is, however, unusual to have someone of unlimited compassion helping the people in the State we represent. Darlene Garcia is a person of unlimited compassion and I have been very lucky to have her on my staff for the last 20 years. Darline is the Director of my Las Cruces office. This is one of the fastest growing areas in New Mexico, and Darlene has her finger on the pulse on it all. She has helped hundreds of New Mexicans with their veterans benefits, social security, food stamps, and immigration problems. Darlene knows how to make the Federal Government do what it is supposed to do for its citizens. In fact, Darlene knows how to make U.S. Senators do what is right by their constituents. I sometimes say, there isn't any kind of care that Darlene hasn't championed be it health care, child care, or elder care. She has always worked for more and better care for the people of Southern New Mexico because it is Darlene who rally cares. Darlene is the doer of good deeds. If good deed were dollars, she would have surpassed Bill Gates years ago. Darlene always has a smile for everyone who walks into my office. She always knows who to call to solve a problem. She has been a mother figure and an inspiration to all of the young people who have interned in my Las Cruces office. Darlene has been my representative to the business community, worked extensively with county and municipal government officials and of course, the Hispanic community. She has worked on border issues and has helped keep the Texans under control The latter is no small feat. I want to thank Darlene for all of her hard work, and wish her the best in retirement. God bless you, Darlene, for all that you have done for me and for the people of New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying the Department of Agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The final bill provides $59.6 billion in new budget authority (BA) and $44.8 billion in new outlays to fund most of the programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. All of the funding in this bill is nondefense spending. The conference report now includes ``emergency'' funding totaling $4.3 billion in budget authority and $4.1 billion in outlays to provide relief to the nation's farmers. When outlays for prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are taken into account, the conference agreement totals $59.4 billion in BA and $51.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999. Including mandatory savings, the subcommittee is $1 million in budget authority below its 302(b) allocation, and at its 302(b) allocation for outlays. The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee revised 302(b) allocation totals $59.4 billion in budget authority (BA) and $51.6 billion in outlays. Within this amount, $17.9 billion in BA and $18.1 billion in outlays is for nondefense discretionary spending, including agricultural emergency spending. For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all the mandatory savings in the bill, the final bill is $4.0 billion in BA and $3.9 billion in outlays above the President's budget request for these programs. The bill is at least $4 billion in both BA and outlays above the Senate- and House-passed bills, all due to the addition of the emergency disaster assistance for farmers. The disaster aid package includes $2.2 billion in direct payments to farmers experiencing crop losses due to natural and other disasters. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act as amended prohibits ``emergency'' spending for purposes of crop disaster assistance. The conference agreement includes directed scorekeeping language allowing the emergency designation to be used in this case. This conference report therefore violates Section 306(a) of the Congressional Budget Act by including legislative language under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee that was not reported by the Senate Budget Committee. I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its 302(b) allocation and in addressing the need for disaster assistance by farmers in many parts of the nation, including New Mexico and parts of the Southwest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the Record.